PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Tennessee Supreme Court Holds That Replacement Cost Less Depreciation Does Not Allow for Depreciation of Labor When Calculating Actual Cash Value of a Property Loss

May 2, 2019 by Heidi Hudson Raschke

Insurance policies are designed to indemnify an insured by putting the policyholder in the same position he or she would have been in had no loss occurred. In the context of property insurance policies, damaged property is typically valued based on its estimated actual cash value (ACV) if it is not repaired or replaced. In order to calculate ACV, an insurer will often calculate the replacement cost (RCV) based on the cost to repair or replace the property with materials ... Keep Reading »

Florida Legislature Passes Sweeping Assignment of Benefits Legislation

April 30, 2019 by Andrew Daechsel

Florida Property Insurance Beach House

Significant changes appear to be in the pipeline for Florida property insurers after the Florida legislature passed sweeping assignment of benefits (AOB) reform legislation last week. If the legislation is signed into law (Governor DeSantis has indicated it will be), it will take effect on July 1, 2019. The legislation applies to residential and commercial property insurance policies and includes new restrictions on AOBs, changes to the fee-shifting framework for AOB ... Keep Reading »

California Federal Court Holds Scope of Duty to Defend Is Determined by the Language of the Contract

April 19, 2019 by Roben West

The Pen is Mightier Than the Sword

In Harper Construction Co. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, No. 3:18-CV-00471-BAS-NLS (S.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2019), the Southern District of California rejected an insured's attempt to expand a CGL policy's definition of "suit" to encompass mere demands without a formal proceeding for damages. In 2007, the federal government awarded a contract for a military training facility in Fort Sill, Oklahoma, to an insured general contractor. After structural ... Keep Reading »

Federal Court Declines to Dismiss Excess Carrier’s Suit Seeking Reimbursement of Amounts Paid in Underlying Medical Malpractice Settlement

April 15, 2019 by Gregory Gidus

Medical Malpractice

Reprinted with permission in Medical Liability Monitor In Ironshore Specialty Insurance Co. v. Conemaugh Health Systems, Inc., No. 3:18-cv-153 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2019), the Western District of Pennsylvania refused to dismiss an excess carrier's suit seeking reimbursement from its insured for settlement amounts the excess carrier paid in an underlying medical malpractice lawsuit. According to the court, Ironshore plausibly alleged that Conemaugh Health Systems Inc. ... Keep Reading »

Break Out Your Crystal Ball: New York’s First Department Relies on Policy’s Mitigation Provision as Support for Allegation That Consequential Damages Were Foreseeable

April 5, 2019 by Nora Valenza-Frost

An insured sought coverage under its commercial property insurance policy for property damage incurred after construction work was performed in an adjoining building. Contending the insurer’s “investigatory process has taken so long and become so attenuated that the structural damage to the building has worsened,” the insured brought suit for breach of contract for failure to pay a covered loss under its insurance policy and breach of the implied covenant of good faith ... Keep Reading »

Coverage Issues Relating to Drones Take on New Heights: A California District Court Finds Drone-Related Injury Falls Within Policy’s Aircraft Exclusion

March 29, 2019 by Christina Gallo

drone

In Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. v. Hollycal Production Inc. et. al., No. 5:18-cv-00768-PA-SP (C.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2018), a California district court held that Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. was not obligated to defend or indemnify a photography firm whose drone blinded a wedding guest in one eye, finding that the drone-related injury fell within the policy’s aircraft exclusion. Darshan Kamboj, a guest at a California wedding, claimed that she lost sight in ... Keep Reading »

Homeowners Insurance Has Unintended Consequence, Insurer Must Defend Teen in Cyberbullying Suit

March 25, 2019 by Emma Mintz

Young girl viewing unpleasant message on cell phone

In State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Motta, et al., No 18-cv-3956 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 11, 2018), the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Court held that State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. had a duty to defend a teenage boy against a lawsuit accusing him of cyberbullying one of his classmates that led her to commit suicide, under the boy’s mothers’ homeowners insurance policy. Julia Morath died by suicide within a couple of days of Zach Trimbur attacking her, via text message ... Keep Reading »

No Offer, No Rejection, No Bad Faith: Georgia Supreme Court Limits Liability for an Insurer’s Bad Faith Refusal to Settle

March 15, 2019 by Amanda Proctor and Christopher B. Freeman

On March 11, 2019, the Georgia Supreme Court handed down an important decision in First Acceptance Insurance Company of Georgia, Inc. v. Hughes, which further clarifies the circumstances under Georgia law for when an insurer may be liable for bad faith in refusing to settle a claim within policy limits. In Hughes, the insured caused a multi-vehicle accident and resulting injury to five individuals. An attorney who represented two of those individuals – Julie An and ... Keep Reading »

Second Circuit Holds “Offering for Sale” Is “Advertising Injury” Under CGL Policy, But Allegation Not Enough to Trigger Duty to Defend

March 12, 2019 by Alex B. Silverman

  Several months ago we blogged about the duty to defend advertising injury claims under commercial general liability (CGL) policies, noting that many courts continue to struggle with the practical application of basic duty to defend principles in this context. The court in that particular case had no such issues. In a more recent decision, however, the potential complexities of this task were on full display. See High Point Design LLC v. LM Insurance Corp. et ... Keep Reading »

Nevada Supreme Court Holds That Insurer’s Liability for Breach of the Duty to Defend is Not Capped at Policy Limits

February 15, 2019 by Rachel Schwartz

Truck Wrong Way

In Century Surety Company v. Dana Andrew (Dec. 13, 2018), the Nevada Supreme Court issued an opinion regarding whether, under Nevada law, the liability of an insurer that has breached its duty to defend, but not acted in bad faith, is capped at the policy limit plus any costs incurred by the insured in mounting a defense, or whether the insurer is liable for all losses consequential to the insurer's breach. Ryan Pretner ("Pretner") and Pretner's guardian (Respondents) ... Keep Reading »

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • …
  • 48
  • Next Page »
Carlton Fields Logo
A blog focused on legal developments in the property-casualty industry by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Get Weekly Updates!

Send Me Updates!

Focused Topics

  • Additional Insured
  • Bad Faith
  • Business Interruption
  • Class Action
  • Construction/Builder’s Risk
  • Coronavirus / COVID-19
  • Cybersecurity
  • Declaratory Judgment
  • Duty to Defend
  • Environmental
  • Flood
  • Homeowners
  • Occurrence
  • Pollution/Pollutant
  • Property
  • Regulatory
  • VIEW ALL TOPICS »

Recent Articles

  • Seventh Circuit Affirms Judgment Dismissing Bad Faith Claim Without Viable Breach of Contract Claim
  • Seventh Circuit Affirms Broad Reading of CGL Policy’s “Radioactive Matter Exclusion” to Include EMF Radiation
  • Iowa Supreme Court Reaffirms Rule That Faulty Workmanship Is Not an Occurrence, Leaving Question of Statutory Fraud for Another Day

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • ExpectFocus Magazine

Related Industries/Practices

  • Insurance
  • Financial Lines Insurance
  • Property & Casualty Insurance
  • Financial Services & Insurance Litigation

About PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
© 2014–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Web Design by Espo Digital Marketing